Stephen Halbrook's book "Securing Civil Rights" shows how the right
to arms has played a crucial role in protecting the constitutional
rights of all Americans.

Stephen Halbrook's book "Securing Civil Rights"shows how the
right to arms has played a crucial role in protecting the
constitutional rights of all Americans.

As the subtitle explains, "Securing Civil Rights" is the story of
"Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms."
"Securing Civil Rights"details a crucial period in American
history that was once obscure, but now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago,will be studied by
every law student and will be taking its rightful place in the
mainstream of American history.

After the Civil War, the ex-Confederate state governments accepted
the formal abolition of slavery. But many of them attempted to keep
the freedmen in de facto servitude. At the foundation of the
effort to keep blacks from true freedom were laws banning blacks
from possessing arms, or requiring them to obtain special licenses
in order to keep arms.

These racist gun bans were augmented by America's oldest gun-control
organization, the Ku Klux Klan, and by other terrorist groups, such
as the Knights of the White Camelia. Roving, mounted gangs of
Kluxers and similar evildoers would descend on isolated black
farmhouses, far outnumbering their victims, and confiscate guns from
one family at a time.

The white supremacist state governments and their terrorist allies
understood why the right to arms is "America's First Freedom"--when
that right is eliminated, it becomes easy to eliminate all other
rights.

So the Congress of the United States fired back with law after law
to protect the freedmen's personal right to arms. The first such law
was the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which specifically authorized the
Union military governments in the South to take action against
deprivations of "the constitutional right to bear arms."

The most important new law was the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. Passed by Congress in 1866 and
ratified by the states in 1868, the 14th Amendment was enacted for
the specific purpose of protecting the freedmen's right to armed
self-defense, as well as other rights.

"Securing Civil Rights"tells this story in careful detail,
based almost entirely on records of the time, such as newspaper
articles and congressional debates. The book is buttressed by
hundreds of endnotes, supporting every fact and conclusion.

Originally published in 1998 by the scholarly publisher Greenwood
Press, and retailing for $107, the book was certainly influential
among scholars. Yet under the title "Freedmen, the Fourteenth
Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms," the price limited the book's
reach to the general public.

Now, the updated 2010 edition from the Independent Institute in
California makes the book accessible to a much broader audience.

Of the many scholars whose work made the McDonald victorypossible, Halbrook was the most influential. When you read this
book, you will understand why the Supreme Court finally decided that
if the original meaning of the Constitution matters at all, the
Supreme Court had the duty to stop local despots like Chicago Mayor
Richard Daley from depriving good citizens of their Second Amendment
rights.

Kopel: How did you get involved in Second Amendment research?

Halbrook: As a youth, I qualified in the junior NRA rifle program
and enjoyed hunting. In college, I joined NRA and read about the
bills in Congress that would result in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Studying the debates on the Constitution during 1787-89, I
discovered what the founders said about the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms. Virtually no scholarship existed on the Second Amendment.
That's when I dedicated myself to fight for this Bill of Rights
freedom that was being both neglected and denigrated.

Kopel: What do you think are the key reasons that the judiciary
started taking the Second Amendment seriously again?

Halbrook: It's in the Bill of Rights--"... the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How long could those
explicit words be relegated to the Orwellian "memory hole," while
"rights" not remotely mentioned in the Constitution were being
invented? Also, the standard model in the academic literature came
to be that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights.
Finally, five justices on the Supreme Court took the Second
Amendment seriously.

Kopel: Why did the Second Amendment fall into such disrespect among
academics and judges in the 1970s?

Halbrook: The reason was not lack of scholarship in support of the
amendment, because there was no reputable scholarship against it.
Some tried to obliterate those clear words of the Bill of
Rights--"the right of the people"--by superficial references to the
states and their militia powers. They supported the criminalization
of gun ownership and embraced the "collective rights" theory under
which "the people" meant nobody.

Kopel: Among the persons you write about in "Securing Civil Rights,"
is there anyone you particularly admire? Why?

Halbrook: In introducing the 14th Amendment to the Senate in 1866,
Jacob Howard of Michigan gave one of the great orations in American
history, explaining that it would prevent the states from infringing
on fundamental rights like keeping and bearing arms. In
congressional hearings, he ferreted out how this right had been
violated.

Kopel: Do you think that the win in McDonald would have been
possible if NRA had never been created?

Halbrook: No. NRA was formed in 1871, the same year that President
Ulysses S. Grant signed the Civil Rights Act--in part to protect the
Second Amendment under which McDonaldwas decided. Grant later
served as the president of NRA. In the 20th century, NRA prevented guns
from being banned as they were in England. At a time when some academics
with funding from tycoons were financing anti-Second Amendment
publications, NRA formed the Civil Rights Defense Fund to support the
Second Amendment scholarship that would win the day in McDonald.

Kopel: What writers, philosophers or other persons have most influenced
your thinking--and your thinking on Second Amendment issues?

Halbrook: Jefferson wrote that the principles of the Declaration of
Independence could be found in Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sidney and
John Locke. As shown in my book"That Every Man Be Armed," they
provided the philosophical basis for the right to bear arms. George
Mason, Patrick Henry and James Madison prompted the adoption of these
principles into the Second Amendment.

Kopel: Why do you think it took the courts and the nation more than 130
years to enforce the 14th Amendment's purpose of requiring state and
local governments to obey the Second Amendment?

Halbrook: The 14th Amendment was proposed and adopted during 1866-68, a
period of enthusiasm to extend the right to bear arms and other civil
rights to African-Americans. But the pendulum then swung the other way
as ruling elites, who mistrusted blacks, immigrants, workers and
ordinary folks, enacted restrictions on the right to bear arms. But then
and now, Americans have always thought that their Second Amendment
rights were protected against any government. The Supreme Court finally
caught up with the people.

Kopel: Do you see any parallels between the behavior of the opponents of
Second Amendment rights today and their predecessors in the post-war
South?

Halbrook: After the Civil War, the Southern states enacted the Black
Codes, which prohibited possession of firearms by freedmen. After Hellerand McDonaldwere decided, D.C. and Chicago defiantly
enacted ordinances more draconian than ever before. Reconstruction came
to D.C. and Chicago, but they declared "massive resistance" and the
fight continues.

Kopel: Why should persons who support states' rights not be upset about
the result in McDonald?

Halbrook: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
The 10th Amendment reservation of powers to the states or to the people
guarantees against the federal government usurping powers, not
protecting rights. The Second and 10th Amendments together have always
been supported or opposed by the same people.

Kopel: What Supreme Court justice do you most respect, and why?

Halbrook: Justices Scalia and Thomas are tied for first place. They seek
to adhere to the text and original meaning of the Constitution. They
understand that the goal of the Supreme Court is to protect
constitutional rights, not to delete some and invent others.

"Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the
Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen P. Halbrook

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303-279-6536. (email)webmngr @ i2i.org